4 ms·

> So drop the support of high end 3D features You're really suggesting people in a field that is constantly pushing the boundaries of graphics to drop one of t

by Arelius 12y ago

> So drop the support of high end 3D features You're really suggesting people in a field that is constantly pushing the boundaries of graphics to drop one of the things they do best? > do you really need that shader Yes! > I don't think any small developer who wants to release on linux can really compete with AAA You'd be surprised with what a small developer can do, See tomorrow children. Sadly sometimes it sometimes seems that if you want to push graphics features, you cannot release on Linux. > Having basic 3D rendering is already awesome in itself No, not really. I'd prefer 2D rendering to basic 3D rendering. > don't try to compete with what other games have already done, and focus on things that are doable and have been done well for a long time Did you really just contradict yourself in the same sentence? Though, more to the point, the problem isn't that getting something running Linux would be difficult. The problem is that in order for Linux to have proper and first-rate support, or in some cases, any support at all, you need to start getting developers working on it as a primary development platform. And if I can't do the things that I, as a graphics programmer, need to do, I'll go elsewhere. Working on Linux is nice, but if I have to choose between developing the game I want to, or having Linux support, that's a trivial decision.

jokoon 12y ago
> You're really suggesting people in a field that is constantly pushing the boundaries of graphics to drop one of the things they do best? Better work in CGI graphics then. Also, what's the point of rendering ? You won't make a game if all you have is good rendering. You also need quality content. You can't be a good graphics programmers AND spend time producing geometry. > Did you really just contradict yourself in the same sentence? I just meant do improve designs that have been proven to work, not try to make the same kind of design you usually see in AAA shelves. I see many indie games just being some remake, or influenced by many other games. They don't have any kind of standing out feature, the only interesting thing there is, is content, which is not what makes a good game. There is almost never a feature of the game that is standing out in term of gameplay and algorithm. A good example is minecraft: the game is interesting because it has an infinite, consistent 3D level. No game had that before. All I care is gameplay and interactions. My point is this: if a game is not different in gameplay and can't attract the player imagination, it's maybe not worth doing.

by Arelius 12y ago

jokoon 12y ago

> You're really suggesting people in a field that is constantly pushing the boundaries of graphics to drop one of the things they do best? Better work in CGI graphics then. Also, what's the point of rendering ? You won't make a game if all you have is good rendering. You also need quality content. You can't be a good graphics programmers AND spend time producing geometry. > Did you really just contradict yourself in the same sentence? I just meant do improve designs that have been proven to work, not try to make the same kind of design you usually see in AAA shelves. I see many indie games just being some remake, or influenced by many other games. They don't have any kind of standing out feature, the only interesting thing there is, is content, which is not what makes a good game. There is almost never a feature of the game that is standing out in term of gameplay and algorithm. A good example is minecraft: the game is interesting because it has an infinite, consistent 3D level. No game had that before. All I care is gameplay and interactions. My point is this: if a game is not different in gameplay and can't attract the player imagination, it's maybe not worth doing.